Talk Fantasy Football

http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richa ... it-machine

The main quote of the article if you want to know the reason I posted this:

Maybe you think you’re a customer, or a potential customer, because you like playing games. But this is the important bit. This is the bit written in every Games Workshop annual report. The company’s mission statement is “we make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.”

It does not mention games. In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. The rest are modellers and collectors. Maybe half of them think about playing now and then. The other half have no intention. People actually walk into the stores because they’re curious about modelling fantastic armies.

So unless this company policy changes (and I do not see that happening) .... Blood Bowl will rest in the hands of the fans to keep the tournaments and leagues alive and the independent companies to keep it alive with miniatures and accessories. So far both seem to be okay. We do run some risk of stagnation but we have some great companies trying to keep the game supported and some great players who run events to keep the interest. Was very pleased to see several first time faces at Chaos Cup this year for example.

I posted this because I see posts here on occasion thinking GW will pick the game back up. This was the official word from the horse's mouth of the new company direction that made me sure now what they are doing.

Thank you for sharing.
Quite interesting article, too.

Thanks for sharing.

You're most likely correct on all assumptions Tom.
I presume that most (if not all) of the self ignited rumours about GW relaunching the game are more "wishful thinking" than anything else.
(Kind of like when we day dream about winning a lottery or something...)

Thanks Tom, a very interesting insight into the GW mindset!

Can't be bothered to read all their drivel again but did they include the "best miniatures in the world" line again?

Yep, it's even in the quote of the starting post.

Regash wrote:Yep, it's even in the quote of the starting post.

+1

Simon ... I tried to make it easy for you (or anyone else) to read everything you needed to know in my post without clicking.

I've stopped reading anything GW write, even in quoted posts.

I'd love someone to turn up at the AGM with something like a Dark Sword miniature...

It's a pity to see how pride, stubbornness and self-imposed blindness is the force driving GW's policies. A sad state of affairs indeed.

macabeo wrote:It's a pity to see how pride, stubbornness and self-imposed blindness is the force driving GW's policies. A sad state of affairs indeed.

What makes you think it's any of those things? I don't see it, personally. They obviously have a business model, they know what they want to do. Good luck to them.

Shteve0 wrote:

macabeo wrote:It's a pity to see how pride, stubbornness and self-imposed blindness is the force driving GW's policies. A sad state of affairs indeed.

What makes you think it's any of those things? I don't see it, personally. They obviously have a business model, they know what they want to do. Good luck to them.

Your post makes absolute sense from a shareholder's point of view, who is only trying to maximize his benefit. Hobbyists and other people fond of the IP won't see it like that.

Sure, it's much better to move on and not to dwell on the things that a group of greedy individuals at the top of the company have done to the IP. I just can't help to think that, if they only listened to their customers, the result would be so much different.

In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. The rest are modellers and collectors. Maybe half of them think about playing now and then. The other half have no intention. People actually walk into the stores because they’re curious about modelling fantastic armies.

Given that GW are boastful of the fact they don't do customer surveys, focus groups or any other type of data collection (last years results) so have therefore pulled these figures out of their arse, I'm going to equally claim that 73% of the figures they gave their shareholders is BS.

macabeo wrote:Your post makes absolute sense from a shareholder's point of view, who is only trying to maximize his benefit. Hobbyists and other people fond of the IP won't see it like that.

Sure, it's much better to move on and not to dwell on the things that a group of greedy individuals at the top of the company have done to the IP. I just can't help to think that, if they only listened to their customers, the result would be so much different.

What a strange argument. Are you suggesting that whether we're fond of the IP or not (and do you think I'd dedicate so much energy to the hobby if I wasn't?) should prevent us even attempting to look at this objectively?

The fact of the matter here is that GW is a plc. They have a responsibility to maximise returns for their shareholders. They've decided on a business strategy for that reason. Just because you and I would rather they hadn't - for our own personal reasons - doesn't mean they're 'proud', 'stubborn' or 'blind'. It probably just means that they've worked out where the money is, and its not in the things we want them to sell.

It's sad we've lost the GW of the eighties, but that entity has long gone; this is the route GW have taken and it's unlikely to change any time soon. There are plenty of other, smaller companies to give your money to.

Shteve0 wrote:

macabeo wrote:Your post makes absolute sense from a shareholder's point of view, who is only trying to maximize his benefit. Hobbyists and other people fond of the IP won't see it like that.

Sure, it's much better to move on and not to dwell on the things that a group of greedy individuals at the top of the company have done to the IP. I just can't help to think that, if they only listened to their customers, the result would be so much different.

What a strange argument. Are you suggesting that whether we're fond of the IP or not (and do you think I'd dedicate so much energy to the hobby if I wasn't?) should prevent us even attempting to look at this objectively?

The fact of the matter here is that GW is a plc. They have a responsibility to maximise returns for their shareholders. They've decided on a business strategy for that reason. Just because you and I would rather they hadn't - for our own personal reasons - doesn't mean they're 'proud', 'stubborn' or 'blind'. It probably just means that they've worked out where the money is, and its not in the things we want them to sell.

It's sad we've lost the GW of the eighties, but that entity has long gone; this is the route GW have taken and it's unlikely to change any time soon. There are plenty of other, smaller companies to give your money to.

It is interesting to see these thoughts in black and white as to me it appear to be two value systems at odds. One system which externally seems to almost exclusively place 'value' in monetary gain, the other system places 'value' not only in monetary gain but in gaining something which offers 'value' in other ways.

It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

There are Stakeholders both customers and I'm sure shareholders who would like to see GW's outlook move further towards a value system which is not so heavily based on monetary gain as it has had in the past. The fact that the stakeholders in some areas are disgruntled does not make GW "proud', 'stubborn' or 'blind" but it would suggest an insensitivity to those it interacts with and a poor communications structure. I grant that you will never please all the people all the time but some of GW's action in recent years may support their value system but will alienate them from many people they look to sell to.

Business in many areas has to be tempered by external factors, yes GW must be allowed to make a profit in order to provide returns to there share holders but does that mean they must ignore other values?

I can't help but wonder how much the IP would actually sell for, I know it would probably be a lottery win amount but never know!